Seymour and Yoshie hail fascism

June 14, 2009 at 12:53 am (fascism, Human rights, Iran, Jim D, perversity, stalinism, SWP)

Lennie “Seymour” Tombstone and his Islamofascist -cum- Stalinist pal Yoshie Furuhasmi gloat over the victory of clerical fascism in Iran:

Of course: after the fascists, come us…said the third-period Stalinists…Yoshie goes so far as to call it a “class vote”: well, I suppose you can argue that, just like Hitler’s 1933 election victory, it was was a “class vote”…by the lumpen proletariat and the peasantry…

Ahmadinejad Won posted by Yoshie

 

Iran’s election commission still hasn’t counted all the votes (roughly 32 million votes in total), but, according to the official results based on about 28 million votes counted so far, Ahmadinejad (18,302,924 votes) defeated Mousavi (8,929,232 votes).

Most of the Western media were predicting a close race, and some were even suggesting that a landslide for Mousavi might be possible. But the actual results were presaged by those of the telephone survey of Iranian voters conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, the New America Foundation, and KA Europe SPRL about a month before election day.

TFT/NAF/KA Survey
Who Will You Vote for in Presidential Elections?

Official Results as Reported by BBC Persian
2009 Presidential Election in Iran

IMHO, it’s a class vote again.

UPDATE

Based on the counting of nearly 31 million votes, the results are 19,761,433 votes for Ahmadinejad, 9,841,056 votes for Mousavi, 633,048 votes for Mohsen Rezaei, and 270,885 votes for Mehdi Karrubi.

Official Results as Reported by BBC Persian
2009 Presidential Election in Iran

46 Comments

  1. Jenny said,

    well…mosavi wouldn’t necessairly be the greatest either: http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat06082009.html

  2. frunobulax said,

    Dear me, are we going all out to regain our HP credentials following MAH’s stern corrective?

  3. maxdunbar said,

    No surprise here Jim, Yoshie seems to be a professional apologist for the regime

  4. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Who’s MAH and what are “HP credentials”, freak?

  5. maxdunbar said,

    Could be Attila Hoare, although I don’t see the relevance

  6. frunobulax said,

  7. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Nope, there’s no relevance to the link at all.

  8. maxdunbar said,

    Anything to say about Iran, fruno?

  9. frunobulax said,

    > Anything to say about Iran, fruno?

    Tombstone’s comments – highly predictable, natch – are hardly worth commenting on. I thought their only purpose was rant-bait for the indefatigable Marko and/or Harry’s Place. Talk about low-hanging fruit…

    I’d recommend Splinty’s latest – makes the point rather better than I could.

    By the way, I chased up Marko’s links. They hardly seem to justify his claim of “periodic defamatory attacks on me and my family”.

  10. Vengeance and Fashion said,

    Given that the three presidential candidates were the only ones (out of 470) who were deemed acceptable by the ayatollahs, it didn’t really matter who won – the only losers would be Iranian workers. All of them offered a package of repression and neo-liberalism, just to slightly different degrees.

  11. Jim Denham said,

    Juan Cole (no stooge of “imperialism”, he), comments:

    Saturday, June 13, 2009
    Stealing the Iranian Election

    Top Pieces of Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen

    1. It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.

    2. Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers. [Ahmadinejad is widely thought only to have won Tehran in 2005 because the pro-reform groups were discouraged and stayed home rather than voting.)

    3. It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran’s western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.

    4. Mohsen Rezaie, who polled very badly and seems not to have been at all popular, is alleged to have received 670,000 votes, twice as much as Karoubi.

    5. Ahmadinejad’s numbers were fairly standard across Iran’s provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.

    6. The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results.

    I am aware of the difficulties of catching history on the run. Some explanation may emerge for Ahmadinejad’s upset that does not involve fraud. For instance, it is possible that he has gotten the credit for spreading around a lot of oil money in the form of favors to his constituencies, but somehow managed to escape the blame for the resultant high inflation.

    But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.

    As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi’s spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi’s camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.

    The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.

    They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts.

    This clumsy cover-up then produced the incredible result of an Ahmadinejad landlside in Tabriz and Isfahan and Tehran.

    The reason for which Rezaie and Karoubi had to be assigned such implausibly low totals was to make sure Ahmadinejad got over 51% of the vote and thus avoid a run-off between him and Mousavi next Friday, which would have given the Mousavi camp a chance to attempt to rally the public and forestall further tampering with the election.

    This scenario accounts for all known anomalies and is consistent with what we know of the major players.

    More in my column, just out, in Salon.com: “Ahmadinejad reelected under cloud of fraud,” where I argue that the outcome of the presidential elections does not and should not affect Obama’s policies toward that country– they are the right policies and should be followed through on regardless.

    The public demonstrations against the result don’t appear to be that big. In the past decade, reformers have always backed down in Iran when challenged by hardliners, in part because no one wants to relive the horrible Great Terror of the 1980s after the revolution, when faction-fighting produced blood in the streets. Mousavi is still from that generation.

    My own guess is that you have to get a leadership born after the revolution, who does not remember it and its sanguinary aftermath, before you get people willing to push back hard against the rightwingers.

    So, there are protests against an allegedly stolen election. The Basij paramilitary thugs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will break some heads. Unless there has been a sea change in Iran, the theocrats may well get away with this soft coup for the moment. But the regime’s legitimacy will take a critical hit, and its ultimate demise may have been hastened, over the next decade or two.

    What I’ve said is full of speculation and informed guesses. I’d be glad to be proved wrong on several of these points. Maybe I will be.

    PS: Here’s the data:

    So here is what Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said Saturday about the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections:

    “Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent).”

    He announced that Mir-Hossein Mousavi came in second with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent).

    Mohsen Rezaei got 678,240 votes (1.73 percent)

    Mehdi Karroubi with 333,635 votes (0.85 percent).

    He put the void ballots at 409,389 (1.04 percent).

    End/ (Not Continued)

  12. Jenny said,

    I’ve been following the reaction at the tomb and it’s fustarating. Deformed worker is especially annoying, but like Bhaskar, I’m sympathetic to those who did not vote for Ahidminjad. I don’t think Yoshi and em are fascist, just extremely dismissive.

  13. charliethechulo said,

    Yoshie is, at the very least, an apologist for the regime, and by her own admission, has “a thing” for Ahmadinejad. If the present protests develop, and there’s a crackdown by the regime, there is no doubt which side Yoshie will be on. How can even a degenerate ex-Marxist like Seymour tolerate this appalling apologist for clerical fascism?

  14. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Because he thinks Ahmadi’s like, really cool for standing up to the Americans. No matter how much he dresses up his stance in quasi-left wing language makes it any more or less than that.

  15. Jenny said,

    Hmm.. Perhaps you have a point. It seems they want socialist change but go about advocating it rather passively. Demanding the government cooperate with progressives doesn’t mean they actually well. Hell, even ol Lou Proyect agrees with you folks, the president’s that vitrol. I personally don’t think it’ll ever be determined if the election is stolen or not,but hopefully this rioting will wake Ahadminjad up.

  16. Von Juntz said,

    Seymour is a sick dog. Yoshie is a car wash cunt. End of story.

  17. entdinglichung said,

    what will come next? an evaluation by Yoshie on the North Koran elections praising the “good campaining” which convinced 100% of the electorate to reject the pro-american parties and to vote for Kim Jong Il?

  18. NGC 891 said,

    Indeed. The funny thing is that these scum could easily have backed the Iranian ‘opposition’. They’re hardly a lot different after all and, given time would soon be pressing the right ‘anti-imperialist’ buttons.

    But no the sweaty Ballymena Jew hater and his theocratic fascist ‘ho can’t bear to criticise their vile hero. Sick, sad and very very funny.

  19. Shuggy said,

    ‘Yoshie’ is some desiccated economist. See here, here, and here. When feeling a little more moist he appears here. Nice title for a blog – I hope you won’t agree.

  20. Jim Denham said,

    Are you sure about that, Shuggy? Foe one thing, I thought ‘Yoshie’ was a”she”, not a “he”.

  21. Shuggy said,

    Ah, one can never tell in the clandestine world of the blogosphere but I was just following the links from here, which is the one found on Richard Seymour’s blog…

  22. Shuggy said,

    Ooops – unclosed tag – sorry… Can you fix?

  23. NGC 891 said,

    Let’s just settle on Yoshie being an ‘it’. And hopefully it will be swinging from a lampost in a few days time (though somehow I doubt it).

  24. Shuggy said,

    Yoshie distinguishing himself, herself, from Djavad Salehi-Isfahani on comments thread at Lenin’s Tomb:

    Mike, have you actually looked at the study done by Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, “A Surprising Result for Inequality in 2007,” which I linked to my posting? Salehi-Isfahani is no fan of Ahmadinejad, and if he voted, he probably voted for Mousavi, given his own policy preference.
    Yoshie | Homepage | 13 Jun, 18:34 | #

    Style and the dependency on content would suggest, however, that they are one and the same person – although this may be a product of temporary insanity on my part, induced by reading too much of this dispiriting thread…

  25. Jenny said,

    Er, Shuggy, Not to lecture,but you might want to be careful with throwin links around, it could come back and bit your arse(charges of libel,etc.)

  26. maxdunbar said,

    Did anyone see the Iran report on Newsnight? I really hope this is the beginning of the end for this regime. It could well be. And what do Lenny/SU/SW have to say about this? Nothing!

  27. maxdunbar said,

  28. Jenny said,

    Yes,but well, at this point I have to ask: Would a Mousavi presidency be that awful? I know, I know, I posted that counterpunch article,but wouldn’t a few reforms be better than none? I’m really tired of this anti-neoliberalism stance. What do they define as neo liberal?

  29. charliethechulo said,

    Seymour distances himself further from the appalling Yoshie, even arguing that the opposition must become more radical, and break with Mousavi:

    http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-can-opposition-win.html

  30. maxdunbar said,

    He’s more or less right, isn’t he? All candidates are vetted by the government and anyone who they approve of is probably not worth voting for. The ideal option would be a rerun election where the excluded candidates could also stand. But I think Lenny exaggerates the extent to which the Western left support Mousawi. Most of us know he’s probably a fraud.

    Still, nice to see him writing some sense on that blog.

  31. voltairespriest said,

    I think the problem that Seymour has, is that he knows the obvious to be true – namely that there is brutal repression going on and that there clearly was some kind of electoral fraud committed on Ahmadinejad’s behalf. However he’s also concerned to maintain his “sound on anti-imperialism” credentials by having a go at the Great Satan and its allies, so he has to distance himself from the rest of the liberal/left, even though he’s having to exaggerate in order to do so.

    Yoshie’s post on the other hand is just bat-shit.

  32. maxdunbar said,

    Yep.

  33. Jim Denham said,

    Seymour now has the SWP “line” and his falling-out with the regime’s tame-left apologist Yoshie, continues apace at Lenin’s Tomb:

    (Lenny Seymour to Yoshie): “serve the rulers who are unworthy of your support, because the nation ruled by the unworthy rulers still must be defended from its many enemies.”

    This looks like a call to rally to Ahmadinejad. But what’s the point? It isn’t obvious that the majority support him – all signs are to the contrary. Iran is on the precipice of a social revolution, and at this time it seems remarkably odd to ask that leftists of all people oppose that process.
    lenin | Homepage | 19 Jun, 14:47 | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    (Yoshapologist to Lenseymour): Lenin: “It isn’t obvious that the majority support him – all signs are to the contrary.”

    I disagree with this. Rallies for Ahmadinejad in Tehran (where Ahmadinejad has a weaker support base than Mousavi), as you may see in the video of the victory rally (and I have many others like this from other rallies as well) are as large as Mousavi’s best showing, and Mousavi’s case for fraud is non-existent, as Kaveh Afrasiavi explains here, analyzing the official complaint lodged by Mousavi: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/afrasiabi190609.html. So, that means that 25 million poorer Iranians for Ahmadinejad vs. 13 million richer Iranians for Mousavi.

    But the call is to defend Iran, not Ahmadinejad, whose term will come to an end after four more years in any case (since he hasn’t made a Chavez-like move to remove term limits). Whatever we do must be judged by this criterion.
    Yoshie | Homepage | 19 Jun, 15:09 | #

    ——————————————————————————–

  34. Jenny said,

    Heh, she even admits his prejudices against homosexuals and Jewish heritage. But nope, she still wants the other Iranian citizens to give in.Thankfully, JohnG and Redbedhead argue the counterpoint. Jim, you folks at shiraz think a reconciliation with the ‘smirking lil weirdo” is possible? 😉

  35. voltairespriest said,

    Whether it’s his own view or the SWP for once taking a firmly socialist “line” on an issue overseas, he’s certainly more right about this than when he was calling Moqtada Al-Sadr a “street fightin’ man” and suchlike political statements on Iraq. I must admit that he and JohnG were not among those stomping up and down in Hyde Park, waving placards and chanting “We are all! Hezbullah!” over the Lebanon stuff though.

  36. Jenny said,

    In the comments, Yoshie seems like he’s saying those who voted for Ahmindejad should also be acknowledged and that it ought to be insured that America doesn’t try to invade Iran or some such,which is understandable. the whole discussion is here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/3171838244020132833/

    I’ve also come to know some nice socialist folks while following all this such as Bhaskar, he can be found here: http://theactivist.org/blog/

    and Reza who’s blog is here: http://revolutionaryflowerpot.blogspot.com/

    P.S. Reza has a good article on Ahmin’s presidency: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m55259&hd=&size=1&l=e

  37. maxdunbar said,

    I think Lenny’s recent posts on Iran have been really good and serve to isolate Yoshi’s servility to the regime.

  38. johng said,

    “I must admit that he and JohnG were not among those stomping up and down in Hyde Park, waving placards and chanting “We are all! Hezbullah!” over the Lebanon stuff though”

    er sorry to disapoint…in the same way that i support the iranian people against repression, i supported the lebanese people against israeli aggression. which in lebanon happened to be hezbollah. i guess the key difference between me and people on this site, is that many hear seem to think the world is divided between the religous and the secular. as a marxist i think the world is divided up into classes and oppresser and oppressed.

  39. maxdunbar said,

    The funny thing is that you think your cartoon idea of Marxism is somehow more valid than your cartoon idea of secularism.

  40. johng said,

    er, i don’t have a cartoon idea of secularism. I just don’t think the fundemental divide in the world is between the secular and the non-secular. i think the fundemental divide in the world is between the exploiter and the exploited and the oppresser and the oppressed.

  41. Jim Denham said,

    Father John G Coughlin:

    “i guess the key difference between me and people on this site, is that many hear seem to think the world is divided between the religous and the secular. as a marxist i think the world is divided up into classes and oppresser and oppressed.”

    No, John: it’s that we support working class democracy; you (at your best) support cross-class populism. Read bsome Marx, John. Start with the Communist Manifesto (especially part 3), and then, when you’re semi-educated, try the Eighteenth Brumaire. I’m sure I’ve suggested this before, but there is still no evidence of you having the most elementary grasp of Marxism – as opposed, say, to Pablo/Guavarist/Stalinist/ Third-worldism.

  42. Jim Denham said,

    …In fairness to Father John, I now see that he’s making an attempt to grope towards Marxism, by posting thie following, in response to the horrible apologist Yoshie and others, over at Lenin’s Tomb:

    “Actually its worth drawing attention to the resemblence between the Islamic Republic’s version of democracy and the colour coded versions. Both exclude the population from much else then casting a vote. Reading through some of the commentry on the left, and one theme is the inability of many to be able to understand that the Iranian regime for a period was both a serious thorn in the side of US imperialism AND the product of a vicious counter-revolution domestically.

    Either you emphasise the counter-revolution and refuse to acknowledge the anti-imperialist content (treating it simply as rhetoric), or on the other hand you recognise the reality that the Iranian regime was hated and feared by the US and represented on occassion a barrier to its plans but soft pedalled the reactionary nature of its domestic politics.

    Since 9/11 and the American war these faulty views generated on the one hand a left that didn’t really want to talk about domestic politics in Iran and constructed imaginary progressive global alliances between China, Iran, Russia and anyone else going, and on the other hand those who threw their hands up and said ‘right. I’m now not going to be concerned about imperialism’.

    Both of these positions were wholly wrong. Hence I think the unhelpful nature of many of the polemics. Here though I think we had a good discussion even if we didn’t agree. But Louis do cut the personal crap. Everyone’s entitled to their bugbears but lets have a bit more political the personal bile. Its odd that you get offended by people throwing the term Leninist around. Many of these people would be the people who would be otherwise sympathetic to your views.
    johng | 20 Jun, 02:57 | #

  43. johng said,

    Well yes Jim. Which is why your position is as wrong as Yoshies is. With the proviso that you are reproducing your false ideology in the country which produces it. Yoshie is living in the US and is arguing against US chauvinism whilst, I think, being unclear about the nature of the events in Iran.

    I have read Marx Jim. You clearly have not.

  44. Jim Denham said,

    I have. I took a large part of my youth when I should have been chasing girls and getting drunk, doing so (I also did manage to chase girls and get drunk): I’ll take your word for it that you have, John. Therefore, John, the difference between you and me is that I understand it. Note that Marxism is universal, John.

  45. Jim Denham said,

    More evidence that Father John is not, quite, such a fucking idiot as he comes over when he comments on our site. Here’s him talking something approaching sense on the ‘Socialist Unity’ site, opposing (to his credit) the vile anti-semitic thug, John Wight:

    #139

    Sandy, what utter codswallop. The masses thus far have stayed at home.

    Where is the national strike, where are the troops going over to the Opposition, where is the working class?

    You and Johng have jumped at the first whiff of disturbance without properly evaluating the situation, based on nothing more than scattered reports and wishful thinking.

    No Marxist worthy of the designation would fall into the trap of mistaking the second month of pregnancy for the ninth.

    As yet this is being driven by the middle class, students, with very little, if any, support from the Iranian working class.

    Anti-Chavez supporters chanted ‘down with the dictator’ during their mass rallies in 2000. Did you support them?

    Prianikoff is absolutely correct. The objective conditions are not in place for the nonsense you’re both spouting.

    Rather than jump to these conclusions, surely the sensible course of action to watch and observe how things develop. After all, Sandy, though your revolutionary ardour is commendable, it isn’t going to have a bearing on the outcome of this crisis one way or the other.

    Comment by John Wight — 20 June, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

    ‘As yet this is being driven by the middle class, students, with very little, if any, support from the…working class’

    Ah, so it’s being led by the SWP?

    Comment by Anonymous — 20 June, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

    You know John this is really disgraceful. The mass campaign of intimidation which was launched from the pulpit last night led the reformer leaders to back off. Hundreds of thousands of people are locked down in their homes after days of being terrorised (all of this on youtube). Your position is contemptible.

    Comment by johng — 20 June, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

  46. maxdunbar said,

    Can’t believe the shit Wight is coming out with. A revolutionary for the establishment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: